Before beginning the day’s testimony, Judge Melville issued the following statement to the court, explaining why there would be no witness testimony on Friday, March 18th, 2005. Michael Jackson and the jurors were excused that day so that the prosecutors and defense attorneys could argue their motions in front of the judge on whether or not the §1108 evidence (“Prior Bad Acts” from 1993) could be admissible in court. Here is Judge Melville’s statement:

1 Santa Maria, California

2 Thursday, March 17, 2005

3 8:40 a.m.

4

5 THE COURT: Good morning.

6 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning.

7 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison)

8 Good morning, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: The reason we’re starting a

10 little late this morning is we had a conference with

11 counsel. And, for several reasons, I’m going to

12 release the jury tomorrow so that they do not have

13 to be here.

14 And the reasons are, one, that one of the

15 jurors has a pressing family matter that, while it

16 doesn’t demand that we close the court down, it

17 would be better if we did.

18 Secondly, the attorneys and myself have

19 been, I think, pushing ourselves very hard, or I’ve

20 been pushing everybody very hard. Depends on how

21 you look at it. And I think a break for everybody

22 is in order.

23 And there are three or four minor — by

24 “minor,” I mean — I shouldn’t say “minor.” There

25 are three or four issues that the attorneys and the

26 Court need to deal with before next week. They’re

27 issues that have been mentioned yesterday that we

28 just couldn’t get to. This way, we can work for 2459

1 what I would anticipate to be a short time tomorrow

2 morning on those issues, and then you would have the

3 rest of the day off. We all would have the rest of

4 the day to do our other work. So that’s what I’m

5 going to do.

6 The Court will also be in session only

7 one-half a day next Tuesday. Tuesday afternoon we

8 are dedicating the new Juvenile Court facility, and

9 the new Juvenile Hall in Santa Maria out on — off

10 of California Street. And of course you’re all

11 invited. I know, I won’t see you there. But that’s

12 the reason that we will not be in session Tuesday

13 afternoon. I will stop at 11:30, at our normal

14 11:30 break.

15 All right. I think that that takes care of

16 the issue of being dark tomorrow.

17 And Mr. Jackson, you do not need to attend,

18 unless you want to, tomorrow morning.

19 THE DEFENDANT: Okay.

20 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

21 THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed.

22 MR. ZONEN: Yes, Your Honor. We’ll call our

23 next witness. We call Fritz Coleman to the stand,

24 please.

25 THE COURT: Remain standing, raise your right

26 hand, please.

The next prosecution witness was Fritz Coleman, who worked as a meteorologist for a local news affiliate in Los Angeles in the early 2000’s. He was an associate of Jamie Masada, the owner of the Laugh Factory comedy club, and he performed stand-up comedy there on occasion, as well as volunteering at the summer camp for underprivileged children (where he first came into contact with the Arvizo family in 1999).

11 DIRECT EXAMINATION

12 BY MR. ZONEN:

13 Q. Mr. Coleman, good morning.

14 A. Good morning.

15 Q. Sir, what is your current occupation.

16 THE COURT: Back in the back, Counsel. Is

17 your mike on.

18 Thank you.

19 MR. ZONEN: Yes, it is.

20 Q. Sir, what is your current occupation.

21 A. I’m a weather forecaster at Channel 4, the

22 local NBC station in Los Angeles.

23 Q. And how long have you held that position.

24 A. 23 years.

25 Q. Prior to that, did you have other television

26 experience.

27 A. Minor television experience. That was my —

28 I was in the stand-up comedy business before that, 2461

1 actually.

2 Q. Do you know Jamie Masada.

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. Do you know the business that he runs.

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. What business is that.

7 A. Owner of The Laugh Factory, a comedy club in

8 Hollywood.

9 Q. And tell us what The Laugh Factory is. What

10 do they do.

11 A. The Laugh Factory is a comedy nightclub that

12 has one to two shows per night every week where a

13 cavalcade of five to six comedians perform every

14 night.

15 Q. Have you ever performed there.

16 A. Yes, I have.

17 Q. Do they have a camp, a summer camp, that

18 they run out of The Laugh Factory.

19 A. Yes, they do.

20 Q. Have you ever worked with that summer camp,

21 with the children who go there.

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. And the type of children who go there,

24 they’re from where.

25 A. Underprivileged children, at-risk children.

26 Group homes, poor families.

27 Q. How long has that summer camp existed.

28 A. I don’t know the answer to that. I think 2462

1 five or six, seven years maybe.

2 Q. All right. Did you ever have an opportunity

3 to meet any of the children in the Arvizo family.

4 A. Yes, I did. I was invited, as were many of

5 the comedians that performed at The Laugh Factory,

6 to be a guest teacher for one day, on one Saturday.

7 And the Saturday that I taught there, I met all

8 three of the children.

9 Q. Can you tell us their names. Do you recall

10 their names.

11 A. Gavin, Star, and Davellin.

12 Q. Were either of their parents, a mother or

13 father, present at the time that you met them.

14 A. The mother came to pick them up at the end

15 of the day. That was my brief encounter with her.

16 Q. And do you remember her name.

17 A. I don’t know, I’m sorry to say.

18 Q. And did the children perform during that

19 day.

20 A. Yes, they did.

21 Q. Did you work with them during that day.

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. And how did you find them at that time.

24 A. I found them personable and polite and

25 charismatic and —

26 Q. And do you remember how long ago that was.

27 A. I would say 1999.

Coleman goes to describe to Zonen exactly how he and Louise Palanker helped the Arvizo family during the Christmas holidays in 2000 by purchasing electronics from Best Buy and giving it to them, unsolicited (this was an attempt to disprove the defense’s assertion that the Arvizos were grifters):

28 Q. At some time did you learn that one of the 2463

1 three children became afflicted with cancer.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you recall when that was, the year that

4 was.

5 A. Um, I think it was 2000, because after my

6 tenure as the teacher there, I lost touch with the

7 family until a group of people just sort of began to

8 discuss that Gavin was in Kaiser with cancer.

9 Q. All right. At some point in time, did you

10 have an occasion to visit their home, the Arvizo

11 family home.

12 A. Yes, I did. Once. The Christmas after the

13 summer when I was the instructor there, my good

14 friend, Louise Palanker, and I decided that we

15 would, for lack of a better term, adopt this family

16 for Christmas. They were, to our learning, in dire

17 financial straits.

18 And I had two young sons who were 12 and 10

19 at the time, and wanted to seize an opportunity to

20 do something nice for a family and sort of bring

21 them along the process, just to help them appreciate

22 more what they had in their own lives.

23 So my friend Louise and I went to Best Buy,

24 and bought several hundred dollars worth of

25 Christmas gifts – video game equipment, movies – and

26 wrapped them. And then my sons and I and Louise

27 took them down to their home in East L.A., and I was

28 in their home for a total of 20 minutes, just to 2464

1 drop the gifts off, and get hugs from the kids, and

2 we were out of there.

3 Q. Did anybody from the Arvizo family solicit

4 those gifts.

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did they ask you in advance.

7 A. No.

8 Q. Did they know in advance that you were doing

9 this.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for

11 speculation.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you tell them in advance

14 that you were doing this.

15 A. I don’t think so. I think after we bought

16 them we said, “May we pay you a Christmas visit.”

17 And they sort of — they knew before the precise

18 moment we took gifts down there, but it was

19 something we just sort of did a couple of weeks in

20 advance and brought them into the process later.

21 They didn’t know before we shopped or anything. It

22 was totally our idea.

23 Q. All right. How did you know where they

24 lived.

25 A. My friend Louise got their address, and we

26 just navigated our way down there.

27 Q. Was Gavin healthy at the time or — was this

28 prior to the — 2465

1 A. This is before the cancer, yes.

2 Q. And the kids were approximately how old at

3 that time, if you recall.

4 A. I would say between 8 and 11. Somewhere in

5 that area. I’m sorry I can’t be precise.

6 Q. Did you, in fact, go to their house and go

7 into their apartment.

8 A. Yes, I did.

9 Q. Do you have a recollection of what the

10 apartment looked like.

11 A. Yes, it was very small. Very clean. And I

12 remember that the room was partitioned with sheets,

13 because there were — with the three children and

14 the two adults, five people, living in a very small

15 space. I was just stricken with how small it was.

16 Q. And the small space you’re describing, was

17 it more than one room.

18 A. I didn’t take a tour of the home. It seemed

19 like it was one room. Again, partitioned by these

20 sheets that they had set up to sort of divide areas

21 of the room.

22 Q. When you were there, did you have a

23 conversation with any of the members of the family.

24 A. Yes. The people who were there. I — I’m

25 not actually sure if the father was there. But I

26 remember the mother being there, and the three

27 children. And it was really a very brief encounter.

28 15 to 20 minutes. 2466

1 Q. Would you describe the mother’s reaction to

2 your bringing the gifts.

3 A. Very thankful. The children, very thankful.

4 I got the feeling that this might have been the only

5 Christmas they were going to have. It just seemed

6 like it was the right thing to do, and perhaps it

7 was — it saved Christmas for them. That was my

8 feeling. They never expressed that, but it was my

9 feeling.

10 Q. And your kids came into the home as well.

11 A. My children came into the home. My young

12 son was actually afraid to get out of the car. This

13 was not a neighborhood that he was familiar with, so

14 he had to be coerced from the car.

15 So my older son went in with me first, and

16 then we went and got my younger son, who wanted to

17 stay in the car.

In this excerpt, Coleman describes the fundraiser and blood drive that he participated in to help the Arvizo family during Gavin’s battle with cancer. Coleman reiterated several times that the family was not involved in the arrangements of these fundraising efforts, and Janet Arvizo (who he met only three times during his interactions with the family) never attempted to solicit any money from him personally:

18 Q. All right. When was the next time that you

19 had an opportunity to visit with any member of the

20 Arvizo family; do you recall.

21 A. Having learned that Gavin had cancer, I

22 saw — I don’t remember which of the siblings was at

23 the hospital, but the next time I saw him was he and

24 his dad at the hospital.

25 Q. What was Gavin’s condition at the time you

26 saw him.

27 A. Very ill.

28 Q. How did he appear to you. 2467

1 A. He appeared very drawn and pale. And this

2 was in the darkest days of his diagnosis when they

3 weren’t sure he was going to make it. And he was

4 very sick to his stomach, and it was very hard to

5 watch.

6 Q. All right. How many times do you believe

7 you visited him at the hospital.

8 A. Several. I would say between three and

9 five, if my memory serves me.

10 Q. During the period of time that he was ill,

11 were you involved in any fund-raising efforts on

12 behalf of either the Arvizo family or Gavin Arvizo

13 specifically.

14 A. Yes, I was. The Laugh Factory decided they

15 wanted to do a fund-raiser for this family. It was

16 apparent to us that they needed the money, because

17 David was not working. He was staying every night

18 at the hospital with Gavin, and so we thought it

19 would be a good idea.

20 I’m not exactly certain where this idea came

21 from. I’m assuming it was Jamie Masada, because he

22 did those things all the time, charity events at the

23 club.

24 And so I was happy to be involved. I was

25 happy to make an announcement on my television

26 station about it. My station was very liberal in

27 allowing me to do community outreach charity events

28 like that, as long as I didn’t benefit from them 2468

1 personally.

2 And so I made an announcement inviting our

3 viewers to come, and also made an announcement about

4 the need for blood for Gavin. He needed

5 transfusions at that time. And so we did this

6 benefit, as we’ve done for many other people.

7 Q. Did Gavin’s mother involve herself in any

8 way with you in efforts to arrange solicitation for

9 his charitable donations.

10 A. Not with me, no.

11 Q. Did she ever have a conversation with you at

12 all about that.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Did you have a conversation with any member

15 of the Arvizo family for that.

16 A. No, my relationship for that fund-raiser was

17 totally with Jamie Masada. It was — he spearheaded

18 the evening, and I was just doing sort of what he

19 suggested.

20 Q. Do you remember if there was actually — if

21 the fund-raising effort actually occurred.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Was that at The Laugh Factory.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Tell us where The Laugh Factory is.

26 A. It’s the corner of Laurel Canyon and —

27 Laurel Avenue and Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood.

28 Q. That particular event, did that take place 2469

1 in the evening.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you remember approximately when it took

4 place.

5 A. It was a weekday event. If it’s like his

6 other shows, if I can remember, it was probably an

7 eight o’clock start, and there were five or six

8 comics. And I was on early in the evening, because

9 I had to go back and do the eleven o’clock news.

10 Q. Do you know if that was during the time that

11 Gavin was still ill with cancer, before he went into

12 remission.

13 A. I can’t be certain about that, but it seems

14 to me like it was close to the beginning of his

15 being ill when we were all concerned about him every

16 day. I think it was close to the beginning, if I’m

17 not mistaken.

18 Q. Was that in conjunction with the effort to

19 get blood to him.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. Which would suggest that he was

22 probably still in need of it.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did you see the mother of this child,

25 Gavin’s mother, at that fund-raiser at The Laugh

26 Factory.

27 A. No.

28 Q. Do you remember if you saw any other member 2470

1 of the Arvizo family.

2 A. I saw David. I went in the front door upon

3 arriving, and my recollection was that they had a

4 table set up to the right of the entrance of The

5 Laugh Factory where they had, I’m not sure how many

6 people, but it seemed to be a representative of The

7 Laugh Factory and David himself and people taking

8 tickets, and maybe taking further donations if

9 anyone decided to make a donation to the family over

10 and above what the cover charge of the club was.

11 But I couldn’t tell you how many people. David was

12 the only person, other than Gavin, that I saw there

13 that night.

14 Q. All right. Were you involved in any way in

15 the distribution of the money that was collected.

16 A. No. No.

17 Q. Are you aware as to how much money was

18 collected that night.

19 A. No. Check that. I heard in conversation

20 afterwards that it was a couple thousand dollars.

21 Just in talk amongst the comics and Jamie. But it

22 was an unofficial thing. I saw no bookwork, I saw

23 no cash exchange hands. I wasn’t involved in that

24 at all.

25 Q. Could you tell if it was a fairly good

26 turnout at The Laugh Factory.

27 A. That club is always full, so I — it

28 probably was a relatively full room. I couldn’t 2471

1 tell you exactly how many audience members were

2 there.

3 Q. Do you remember what other comedians were

4 there.

5 A. Well, I was at the beginning of the show,

6 because I was — again, it was a lunch break for me,

7 and I was on my way back to do the news.

8 I think that Chris Tucker was there. Maybe

9 Bob Saget. Some of the ongoing Laugh Factory

10 regular comedians. But I didn’t see the rest of the

11 show, so I couldn’t swear to their presence there,

12 honestly.

13 Q. Do you remember any other occasion where you

14 may have seen the mother of Gavin, Gavin’s mom.

15 A. I saw Gavin’s mom a total of three times in

16 my whole experience with the family. One was when

17 she came to pick the children up at the end of

18 comedy camp. The other time was when we delivered

19 the presents to her house. And the last time was my

20 final visit to see Gavin in the hospital after his

21 first bout. She came in toward the end of my visit

22 there. And I hadn’t seen her.

23 I think the legend was that because David

24 was not working and staying with Gavin, she was

25 working all the time. So they were never at the

26 hospital at the same time.

27 However, my last visit, she came in at the

28 end, and that was it. And that was a total of a 2472

1 half hour.

2 Q. Do you remember anything unusual about your

3 conversations with her at all.

4 A. No.

5 Q. Did she ever solicit money from you.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Did she ever ask you to do anything on her

8 behalf or on behalf of her family.

9 A. No.

10 Q. Was there anything at any time inappropriate

11 about her behavior with you.

12 A. No.

13 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. I have no further

14 questions.

15 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau.

16 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor.

Mesereau began his cross examination by asking Coleman if he had any knowledge of the Arvizo family’s settlement with JC Penney, and Coleman denied having any knowledge of it. Zonen’s objection to this question was overruled by Judge Melville. Mesereau then asked Coleman if he knew why his name had come up in that case, an Coleman replied that he first learned about it when the Daily News tabloid called him and told him what Janet Arvizo had told the cops in 2001 after an altercation with her husband David, which was the following: “Fritz Coleman, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson are going to help me in my case against my husband.” Coleman denied ever speaking to Janet about helping her against her ex-husband David.

18 CROSS-EXAMINATION

19 BY MR. MR. MESEREAU:

20 Q. Good morning, Mr. Coleman.

21 A. Good morning.

22 Q. My name is Thomas Mesereau and I speak for

23 Mr. Jackson.

24 We have not met before.

25 A. Right.

26 Q. Never spoke on the phone.

27 A. No, sir.

28 Q. You did talk to one of our investigators, 2473

1 Mr. Scott Ross, right.

2 A. Right.

3 Q. How many times did you speak to him.

4 A. Two times in person, one time when he did

5 the initial interview, and one time when he issued

6 my subpoena. And I think one time on the phone, I

7 think.

8 Q. Okay. When did you first meet the Arvizo

9 family.

10 A. I met them at the comedy camp, as I stated

11 earlier, which was a Saturday in the summer, I

12 think, of 1999. It was a one-day encounter with

13 them, because each of the instructors was only there

14 for one day.

15 Q. Okay. Now, at that point was Gavin ill.

16 A. No.

17 Q. Okay. Approximately when do you recall

18 Gavin becoming ill.

19 A. I remember learning about it – I’m real

20 fuzzy about this – anywhere from six months to a

21 year after I met the family. I’m sorry, I’m —

22 Q. Okay. And approximately when do you think

23 the fund-raiser took place.

24 A. I want to say — I’ll be honest with you,

25 the timeline that we’ve discussed since this

26 investigation started seems to be about October

27 2000.

28 Q. Okay. Now, at some point, did you learn the 2474

1 Arvizo family had obtained over $100,000 in a

2 lawsuit with J.C. Penney.

3 A. No, I hadn’t.

4 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I’m going to object

5 to information that would be hearsay. Move to

6 strike.

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever have a

9 discussion with any of the Arvizos about their

10 filing a lawsuit against J.C. Penney.

11 A. No. My first knowledge that I was even

12 mentioned in the J.C. Penney arrest was when the New

13 York Daily News called me at the beginning of this

14 case to ask me if I had a comment about it, and that

15 was my first learning of that information.

16 Q. And what did you learn about your name being

17 used in that case.

18 MR. ZONEN: I will object as hearsay.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you learn at some

21 point that your name had come up in the J.C. Penney

22 lawsuit.

23 MR. ZONEN: I will object as hearsay.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know anything about

26 Janet Arvizo telling the Los Angeles Police

27 Department when she called them about David that you

28 were going to help her — 2475

1 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay

2 and irrelevant.

3 THE COURT: I have to have the complete

4 question.

5 Did you finish the question, Mr. Mesereau.

6 MR. MESEREAU: I’m not sure. I think Mr.

7 Zonen may have interrupted before I completed it,

8 Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: I can’t tell if you completed it

10 either.

11 MR. MESEREAU: I can rephrase it, Your

12 Honor.

13 Q. Mr. Coleman, did you ever authorize Janet

14 Arvizo to tell the Los Angeles Police Department

15 that you were going to help her in a domestic

16 violence case against her ex-husband David.

17 A. Never.

18 Q. Did you ever learn that she had told the Los

19 Angeles Police Department, “Fritz Coleman, Kobe

20 Bryant, and Michael Jackson are going to help me in

21 my case against my husband”.

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. Where did you learn that.

24 A. I learned it from a New York Daily News

25 reporter who was calling me to get comments about

26 this particular case.

27 Q. And did you respond.

28 A. I said I knew nothing about it. 2476

1 Q. So you never had a discussion with her about

2 that.

3 A. No.

4 Q. You never authorized her to use your name,

5 correct.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Have you ever authorized Janet Arvizo to use

8 your name in any lawsuit.

9 A. No.

10 Q. Okay. Have you ever discussed any lawsuit

11 with Janet Arvizo.

12 A. No.

Next, Mesereau went through a laundry list of grifting activities of the Arvizo family, and asked Coleman if he was aware of any of them, and he confirmed that he heard it through the grapevine that David Arvizo had approached George Lopez about allegedly stealing money from Gavin’s wallet (which was left at Lopez’s house by Gavin), and that there was falling out between the two.

13 Q. Okay. Now, you indicated that you visited

14 the — what was described to you as a family

15 residence in East Los Angeles, right.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And that was on Soto Street, right.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. And who arranged for you to visit the

20 residence at Soto Street.

21 A. My friend Louise Palanker, who was working

22 at The Laugh Factory at the time, and was sort of my

23 liaison with the family. She learned the address.

24 I don’t know how she learned the address. But she

25 had the instructions, and I drove.

26 Q. Now, did anyone ever tell you that there was

27 a second address in El Monte that the family used.

28 A. No. 2477

1 Q. Did you know anything about where their

2 grandparents lived.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Okay. Have you ever been to a different

5 location in El Monte where that family has lived.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Okay. Were you aware of any efforts by the

8 Arvizos to obtain automobiles from other

9 celebrities.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Knew nothing about any attempt to obtain an

12 automobile from Michael Jackson.

13 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as hearsay.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were you aware of any

16 other attempts by the Arvizo family to obtain cash

17 from celebrities, other than the fund-raiser you’re

18 talking about.

19 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as vague. Which

20 Arvizo.

21 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll go through them. I’ll

22 rephrase.

23 Q. Were you ever aware of any attempt by Janet

24 Arvizo to obtain cash money from any celebrity.

25 A. No.

26 Q. Were you ever aware of David Arvizo

27 attempting to obtain cash from any celebrity.

28 A. May I say that I had heard conversation 2478

1 about him having done that. I don’t know if it

2 works in this case. There were some stories that he

3 had approached George Lopez and was — David, and

4 was fairly persistent about it, raising George’s

5 anger.

6 Again, this is hearsay. I heard this

7 third-person rumor. But there were conversations

8 around The Laugh Factory that he, in fact, had

9 become a problem with George Lopez.

10 Q. Were you ever aware of Gavin Arvizo calling

11 Jay Leno on the phone to ask for money.

12 A. No.

13 MR. ZONEN: Assumes facts not in evidence;

14 objection.

15 THE COURT: All right. The answer is in:

16 “No.” And next question.

17 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

18 Q. Did you ever hear of Janet Arvizo

19 approaching Mr. Leno for money.

20 MR. ZONEN: Objection; assuming facts not in

21 evidence.

22 THE COURT: Calls for hearsay. Sustained.

23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: To your knowledge, was

24 Janet Arvizo approaching any other comedian and

25 asking for money at the same time that you were

26 making efforts to raise funds for the family.

27 A. No.

28 Q. Okay. Were you — did you have any 2479

1 knowledge of either — well, let me just go one at a

2 time. Did you have any — let me rephrase it.

3 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to any

4 questions starting with “Do you have knowledge” if

5 there’s no foundation that it’s personal knowledge.

6 MR. MESEREAU: Well —

7 MR. ZONEN: Simply hearing something from

8 somebody else is hearsay.

9 THE COURT: We have to wait till the question

10 is completed. And you can’t object in advance to

11 all questions.

12 Go ahead.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

In this excerpt, Mesereau questioned Coleman about his reasons for helping the family. Coleman stated that he just wanted to show a good example to his sons, but he told Mesereau’s private investigator Scott Ross that he thought that the family needed the money. Coleman had no knowledge of the newspaper ad that the Janet took out in order to raise $12,000 dollars for Gavin’s chemotherapy session, that the family had medical insurance to pay their bills, or the money that Janet solicited from police officers.

14 Q. Mr. Coleman, obviously you were involved in

15 efforts to raise money for the Arvizo family, right.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And the motivation for your efforts was your

18 belief that the Arvizo family needed money for

19 medical expenses, true.

20 A. I would say that my understanding was that

21 the Arvizo family needed money, and I — my

22 involvement wasn’t because of a specific need for

23 medical expenses. It was just that I had been to

24 their home and know that, for whatever reason, they

25 needed money.

26 Q. But you had mentioned to our investigator,

27 Scott Ross, on one occasion, that it was your belief

28 that you were raising money for medical expenses for 2480

1 Gavin, correct.

2 A. That may have been part of the conversation.

3 But I think my original desire to be involved with

4 it really wasn’t that specific. I just said, “Yes,”

5 not even needing specific areas where the money

6 would go.

7 Q. Did you know that the Arvizo family was

8 engaged in any other fund-raising efforts at the

9 time that you were doing this.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did you know of any newspaper ads saying

12 chemotherapy costs $12,000 a session. Do you know

13 anything about that.

14 A. No.

15 Q. Okay. And did you ever have a discussion

16 with any of the Arvizos about whether they had

17 insurance coverage that was paying all the medical

18 bills.

19 A. No.

20 Q. Okay. Did you know anything about efforts

21 to solicit funds or benefits from Los Angeles police

22 officers.

23 A. No.

24 Q. Okay. Now, I assume you met Star Arvizo,

25 correct.

26 A. Right.

27 Q. Davellin Arvizo, right.

28 A. Uh-huh. 2481

1 Q. Obviously Gavin.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you met his mother.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you met David.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you meet any other people that were

8 related to the Arvizos, to your knowledge.

9 A. No. No.

10 Q. And you visited their home on Soto Street in

11 East Los Angeles how many times.

12 A. Once.

13 Q. And was the purpose, in your mind, for you

14 to donate something to the Arvizos.

15 A. It was — my purpose in it was to teach my

16 children something, which was we’re going to do

17 something for folks who can’t afford to have a

18 really good Christmas like we always have.

19 And Louise and I — and I don’t know when

20 the conversation came up — said that this would be

21 a great way for us to do that, to take care of the

22 Arvizos, that we had become very fond of because of

23 comedy camp, and to do this for my kids. It was

24 just — it was a spur-of-the-moment thing. That was

25 the only reason.

26 Q. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, I think you

27 said in response to the prosecutor’s questions that

28 it was your belief David Arvizo was not working, 2482

1 right.

2 A. Well, I don’t see how he could have been,

3 because he was at the hospital every time and slept

4 overnight in an adjacent bed. So I think we all

5 assumed that he had taken a leave from work or was

6 not — between jobs or something. No one told me

7 that. It was just sort of what we observed.

8 Q. And did you know at that time whether or not

9 Janet Arvizo was actually working.

10 A. I was told that she was, which was why we

11 never saw her at the initial few visits to the

12 hospital.

13 Q. Okay. You mentioned a blood drive.

14 A. Uh-huh.

15 Q. Or I think the prosecutor mentioned a blood

16 drive.

17 Were you part of any effort to put together

18 a blood drive for Gavin.

19 A. I wasn’t part of putting it together. I

20 made an announcement on television about this

21 benefit, which I’m allowed to do unofficially all

22 the time.

23 And in the context of that announcement, I

24 mentioned that “We’re also trying to find some blood

25 for this child.” But I wasn’t part of the

26 organizing of the drive, or the location, or the

27 times, or the official carrying out of the event at

28 all. 2483

1 Q. Were you ever aware of Michael Jackson

2 putting together a blood drive for Gavin.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Okay. So you never participated with

5 Michael Jackson —

6 A. No.

7 Q. — in any fund-raising activity —

8 A. No.

9 Q. — or blood-drive activity.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Okay. Now, who told you this family was

12 impoverished.

13 A. Well, the prerequisite to be in the comedy

14 camp was to be from a needy situation. They had

15 children who were from group homes with disciplinary

16 problems, emotional problems, or people from poverty

17 stricken areas. That was Jamie’s mandate.

18 So that them just being in attendance at

19 this comedy camp sort of put them in that area.

20 Q. Now, this would have been before Gavin

21 became ill, correct.

22 A. Right. That was my first meeting with him,

23 which was the summer of ‘99.

24 Q. Now, when you first met the Arvizos before

25 Gavin became ill, was it your understanding that

26 David was employed.

27 A. I didn’t have an opinion about it at that

28 point. I knew nothing about the family’s personal 2484

1 life. I just knew that they were probably in these

2 circumstances because they were there.

3 Q. And before you — excuse me. When you first

4 met the Arvizos, again, before Gavin became ill, was

5 it your belief that Janet was unemployed.

6 A. I — again, I didn’t have that knowledge.

7 I just —

8 Q. But your assumption was they must be poor or

9 they wouldn’t be in this program, correct.

10 A. Absolutely.

11 Q. And you never had — made any effort to find

12 out whether they were working or not working, right.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Did you know whether or not they were

15 collecting welfare.

16 A. No.

17 Q. Did you know whether or not they were

18 collecting disability benefits.

19 A. No.

20 Q. Do you know whether or not they were

21 collecting food stamps.

22 A. No, sir.

Mesereau continued to ask Coleman about his interactions with the family, his participation in the Laugh Factory charitable activities for the family, and his assumptions about the family’s financial status based on his observations of them. Because David spent so much time at the hospital with Gavin, and because Janet was rarely there, Coleman assumed that David was not working, and Janet was working, but never confirmed it.

Interestingly, Coleman received many thank you cards from the family, but they were not addressed to him as “daddy” or “father”.

Under Zonen’s redirect-examination, Coleman reiterated that he was not concerned about the thank you cards that he received, and that he felt that the family was truly destitute and in need, based on the living conditions of their studio apartment.

Before ending his redirect-examination, Zonen included some light-hearted courtroom levity, which helped cut the tension in the courtroom, if only for a moment:

20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. ZONEN:

22 Q. Mr. Coleman, the thank you note that you

23 received, was there anything inappropriate written

24 on it.

25 A. No.

26 Q. Was there anything that caused you to sit

27 back and be concerned.

28 A. No. 2501

1 Q. All right. When you went out to the house

2 in East Los Angeles — and I say “house.” It was

3 actually a studio apartment; is that right.

4 A. Right.

5 Q. Was there anything that you saw in this

6 apartment that caused you to question whether or not

7 they really were a family in need.

8 A. No.

9 Q. All right. And you said that the room was

10 divided up. Explain how it was divided up for us.

11 A. It seemed like they partitioned off a

12 portion of it with a sheet. A sheet had been hung.

13 I don’t know if it was to separate children’s living

14 areas. I didn’t want to take a tour of it. I

15 didn’t want to make them uncomfortable with showing

16 me what they did or didn’t have in their life.

17 So it seemed to me they had various areas

18 partitioned off with a sheet hanging with a cord

19 across to sort of divide a room that wasn’t

20 otherwise divided. That was my initial impression.

21 Q. All right. And were there beds or anything

22 that looked like beds that you were able to see from

23 your vantage point.

24 A. I don’t remember.

25 Q. All right. The fund-raiser, as Mr. Mesereau

26 refers to, the event that took place at The Laugh

27 Factory, was that the only event that you were aware

28 of that was done for Gavin. 2502

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. Was that a fund-raiser or was it for blood

3 donations.

4 A. It was both. It was both. It was to bring

5 people down to The Laugh Factory, and to raise

6 awareness about him needing a specific blood type.

7 Q. They weren’t taking blood at that time.

8 A. No, it was just to — if people were

9 interested, they could contact The Laugh Factory

10 or — I wasn’t sure if we had asked them to contact

11 the specific number at Kaiser or what. But it was a

12 very unofficial — just sort of a consciousness

13 raising announcement more than a specific thing.

14 Q. Mr. Coleman, I have one last question. Are

15 we expecting rain this weekend.

16 A. Well, you know, I should be back there

17 trying to figure that out right now.

18 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

19 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your

20 Honor.

21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may

22 step down.

23 Call your next witness.

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Our next witness is Kiki

25 Solveig Fournier.

Summary of the testimony of Fritz Coleman

1. Fritz Coleman worked as a meteorologist for a local news affiliate in Los Angeles in the early 2000’s. He was an associate of Jamie Masada, the owner of the Laugh Factory comedy club, and he performed stand-up comedy there on occasion, as well as volunteering at the summer camp for underprivileged children (where he first came into contact with the Arvizo family in 1999).

2. Coleman goes to describe to Zonen exactly how he and Louise Palanker helped the Arvizo family during the Christmas holidays in 2000 by purchasing electronics from Best Buy and giving it to them, unsolicited (this was an attempt to disprove the defense’s assertion that the Arvizos were grifters). He also testified that the Arvizos were not involved in the planning of the fundraiser that was held for Gavin, and they didn’t solicit any money from him either.

3. Mesereau began his cross examination by asking Coleman if he had any knowledge of the Arvizo family’s settlement with JC Penney, and Coleman denied having any knowledge of it. Zonen’s objection to this question was overruled by Judge Melville. Mesereau then asked Coleman if he knew why his name had come up in that case, an Coleman replied that he first learned about it when the Daily News tabloid called him and told him what Janet Arvizo had told the cops in 2001 after an altercation with her husband David, which was the following: “Fritz Coleman, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson are going to help me in my case against my husband.” Coleman denied ever speaking to Janet about helping her against her ex-husband David.

4. Mesereau went through a laundry list of grifting activities of the Arvizo family, and asked Coleman if he was aware of any of them, and Coleman confirmed that he heard it through the grapevine that David Arvizo had approached George Lopez about allegedly stealing money from Gavin’s wallet (which was left at Lopez’s house by Gavin), and that there was falling out between the two.

5. Mesereau questioned Coleman about his reasons for helping the family. Coleman stated that he just wanted to show a good example to his sons, but he told Mesereau’s private investigator Scott Ross that he thought that the family needed the money. Coleman had no knowledge of the newspaper ad that the Janet took out in order to raise $12,000 dollars for Gavin’s chemotherapy session, that the family had medical insurance to pay their bills, or the money that Janet solicited from police officers.

6. Mesereau continued to ask Coleman about his interactions with the family, his participation in the Laugh Factory charitable activities for the family, and his assumptions about the family’s financial status based on his observations of them. Because David spent so much time at the hospital with Gavin, and because Janet was rarely there, Coleman assumed that David was not working, and Janet was working, but never confirmed it.

The prosecution’s next witness was Kiki Fournier, a former housekeeper at Neverland ranch who worked there from September 1991 through September 2003, and quit on her own volition. Her duties included cleaning the main residence, guest quarters, and the theater.

Fournier asked that she not be forced to testify because she “didn’t want to be at the center of attention”, but nevertheless her subpoena was served.

14 DIRECT EXAMINATION

15 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

16 Q. Good morning, Ms. Fournier.

17 A. Good morning.

18 Q. Have you in the past worked for Michael

19 Jackson at Neverland Ranch.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. What did you do. How were you employed at

22 Neverland Ranch.

23 A. I was a housekeeper.

24 Q. Can you tell me the time frame that you

25 worked for Mr. Jackson.

26 A. I started in September of ‘91, and worked

27 off and on till September 28th, 2003.

28 Q. Okay. When you say — yeah, you have to 2504

1 speak directly into that microphone so we can hear

2 you.

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. When you say “off and on,” can you give me a

5 little more specific description of what that means.

6 A. Well, I worked a couple years, and then I

7 would take some time off. I had a child back in

8 1993 also, so — and then I would take a couple of

9 years off, and then I would go back for a couple of

10 years.

11 Q. And you said you left ultimately in

12 September of 2003.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you leave of your own accord.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. At any time have you ever been terminated as

17 an employee from Neverland Ranch.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Please describe your duties as a housekeeper

20 at Neverland.

21 A. Cleaning the main residence, cleaning the

22 guest quarters, cleaning the theater.

23 Q. Would you have interaction with guests of

24 the ranch.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And would you do anything other than just

27 cleaning.

28 A. Serve food sometimes. 2505

1 Q. Did you have a particular shift that you

2 worked.

3 A. Well, it varied. It depended on who wanted

4 to work during the day — excuse me — and who

5 wanted to work at night. So I would sometimes more

6 frequently work the nights.

7 Q. And describe for me what time frame we’re

8 talking about. What does the night shift consist

9 of.

10 A. Basically it was, you know, catching up on

11 laundry and, you know, taking care of the guests,

12 serving them dinner. Getting them anything that

13 they needed.

14 Q. But as far as the time frame, from what

15 hours. What would your hours be for the night

16 shift.

17 A. It depended. It just depended on if there

18 was guests or if anybody was at the house.

19 Q. So you would finish up work at a different

20 hour depending on the night.

21 A. Depending on what the demands were during

22 the day.

23 Q. What time would you normally report for work

24 as a night-shift housekeeper.

25 A. It all varied, but usually we tried to make

26 it so that who came in later would work later.

27 Q. Did you ask not to have to testify in this

28 case. 2506

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. And why is that.

3 A. I don’t want —

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Goes to her credibility,

6 Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

8 You may answer.

9 THE WITNESS: I can answer.

10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, you can answer.

11 A. I don’t want to have anything to do with

12 this. I just don’t like being the center of

13 attention either.

Fournier described the three head managers at Neverland, including Jesus Salas, the employee who drove the Arvizo family home in a Rolls-Royce during their first “escape”:

14 Q. All right. As an employee of Neverland, who

15 was in charge at Neverland Ranch.

16 A. Mr. Jackson.

17 Q. Were there certain administrators who were

18 in charge of various functions, various functions

19 concerning the operations at the ranch.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Who were the main administrators.

22 A. Joe Marcus was the ranch manager when I was

23 there. And Jesus Salas was the house manager. And

24 Violet Silva is the security, head of security.

25 Q. Okay. Were those three managers working

26 during the time period of 2002 to 2003.

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. And did they have those assignments as 2507

1 managers during that period of time.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What was — do you know what Joe Marcus’s

4 job was as ranch manager.

5 A. I — oversee all the departments.

6 Q. Okay. So would he oversee Violet Silva.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And Jesus Salas, who was the house manager.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you observe his relationship with the

11 defendant, Mr. Jackson.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Could you characterize that for me, please.

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can be more specific.

16 THE COURT: All right.

17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You said you observed

18 the relationship with Mr. Jackson. How often would

19 you see them interacting in the course of your

20 duties as a housekeeper.

21 A. Well, not that often. I wasn’t familiar

22 when they were on the phone or when they would meet

23 in person, but I do know that they would — they

24 would meet and they would speak to each other.

25 Q. Okay. And were you present during any of

26 those conversations when they were interacting.

27 A. I probably was, but I don’t really remember.

In this excerpt, Auchincloss wanted Fournier to describe if and how Jackson would terminate employees so that he could show how much influence Jackson exerted over them. The prosecution argued that Neverland was run by Jackson in almost a mobster-type atmosphere, where employees worked in fear because they could be fired by Jackson at a moment’s notice based on any perceived disciplinary violation:

14 Q. Have you ever seen the defendant, Mr.

15 Jackson, fire anybody, been present.

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 352.

17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, it’s offered

18 to show the defendant’s level of influence over his

19 own employees.

20 THE COURT: All right. I’ll limit it to a

21 “yes” or “no” answer.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

23 Q. Did you ever see him fire any of his

24 employees.

25 A. I never saw him personally fire somebody.

26 Q. Okay. Were his employees generally aware

27 that Mr. Jackson could fire them.

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; 2510

1 speculation; vague; relevance; no foundation.

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Jackson was the

3 employer of these people.

4 THE COURT: Well, you may have a couple more

5 reasons.

6 (Laughter.)

7 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the hearsay

8 objection.

9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were you aware that you

10 could be terminated at any given moment.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Were you aware of anybody that had been

13 fired — was anybody fired at Neverland while you

14 were there.

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 352;

16 foundation.

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 You may answer. “Yes” or “no.”

19 THE WITNESS: Sorry, what was the question

20 again.

21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were you aware of

22 anybody who ever got fired at Neverland.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you know who fired them. Who was the

25 person responsible for their termination.

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

27 THE COURT: Just answer that question “yes”

28 or “no.” 2511

1 Which answers your objection.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was aware that he had

3 fired people, Mr. Jackson. And —

4 THE COURT: Just a moment. I just wanted a

5 “yes” or “no” answer to that.

6 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

7 THE COURT: So the answer is “Yes.” Next

8 question.

After describing her work at Neverland and her interactions with Jackson and his inner circle, Fournier was asked by Auchincloss to describe to the court Jackson’s interactions with children (primarily when he was alone with them), whether or not their parents were with them at the ranch when they spent the night (they were, for the most part, although “there were quite a bit without their parents”). According to Fournier, there generally weren’t any rules or regulations at Neverland, and they could stay up as late as they want, eat as much junk food as they want, etc.

17 Q. Would children be among the overnight guests

18 at Neverland while you were working there.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. How often.

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And based upon your own

24 personal experience, in other words, what you

25 observed, can you characterize how often children

26 would be overnight guests at Neverland during your

27 employment there.

28 A. Let me just answer by explaining that there 2527

1 would be times when there would be nobody there, and

2 then when Mr. Jackson would come home he would have

3 guests with him, so they could stay a couple of

4 days, weeks, or maybe even a month.

5 Q. Okay. Let me refine that a little bit.

6 During the time that you worked at Neverland

7 and during the time that Mr. Jackson was on the

8 property, how often would children be overnight

9 guests at Neverland.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; assumes

11 facts not in evidence.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Under both grounds or —

14 THE COURT: The last ground.

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.

16 THE COURT: Assumes facts not in evidence.

17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were children ever

18 overnight guests at Neverland.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. All right. I’m going to repeat my last

21 question. How often were they guests at Neverland

22 when Mr. Jackson was on the property.

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You may answer.

26 A. I would say quite a bit.

27 Q. Would the children who were spending the

28 night at Neverland have their parents with them when 2528

1 they’d visit or spend the night.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague, and

3 foundation.

4 THE COURT: Sustained on foundation.

5 Q. Were you a witness as to whether or not

6 these children came with their parents or were

7 without their parents.

8 A. Sometimes they came with their parents

9 and —

10 Q. That’s a yes-or-no question first. We have

11 to do this in order.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You were a witness, true.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you have personal knowledge as to whether

16 or not the children’s parents were with them when

17 they visited Neverland.

18 MR. MESEREAU: Vague as to time.

19 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: During your period of

20 employment.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. You do, okay.

23 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And going back to my

26 last question, can you tell us how often children

27 would be overnight guests at Neverland without their

28 parents. 2529

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and

2 vague.

3 THE COURT: Overruled.

4 You may answer.

5 THE WITNESS: They were there quite a bit

6 without their parents.

7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: How are children

8 treated at Neverland.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

11 THE WITNESS: Like any child wants to be

12 treated.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And what do you mean by

14 that.

15 A. Well, like you could watch movies. You

16 could watch videos, play video games. Eat whatever

17 you want to eat. Candy. Stay up as late as you

18 want. Ride amusement rides, so —

19 Q. Okay. Are there rules.

20 A. Not really.

21 Q. Is there discipline.

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague, and

23 foundation.

24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Are the children

25 disciplined, is the question.

26 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 You may answer. 2530

1 THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, there’s the

2 employees who would frequently interfere with their

3 fun sometimes and tell them it was enough. But, I

4 mean, as far as parents go, no.

5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would Mr. Jackson,

6 based upon your personal experience, discipline the

7 children.

8 A. Sometimes, yes.

9 Q. Okay. Tell me about it.

10 A. Like if they got too rowdy at the dinner

11 table, and sometimes I want to say practically have

12 a food fight or something, but he would tell them to

13 behave, kind of stuff like that, and tell them —

14 you know, if they would get into candy-throwing

15 fights in the theater, and, you know, he was upset

16 about that, and he would, you know, tell them to

17 stop it, or, you know.

18 Q. Did he himself ever engage in that type of

19 conduct.

20 A. I never saw that in the theater with Mr.

21 Jackson.

22 Q. All right. In terms of the limits that Mr.

23 Jackson would set upon these children —

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

25 vague; relevance.

26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I haven’t finished the

27 question.

28 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. 2531

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. The

3 question is, in terms of — you’ve talked about that

4 there were times when Mr. Jackson would say

5 “enough.”

6 A. Uh-huh.

7 Q. Can you characterize, in terms of the whole

8 latitude Mr. Jackson would give these children in

9 terms of their behavior.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Vague as to time.

11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: During your period of

12 employment. Do you understand the question.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. Can you characterize that.

15 THE COURT: Well, there’s — I’ll overrule

16 the objection. But what’s happened is you’ve kind

17 of spread the question out. So would you rephrase

18 it.

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.

20 Q. My question is, we’ve — you’ve talked about

21 Mr. Jackson stepping in when he felt that things

22 have gone too far with the children’s behavior in

23 terms of discipline, this type of thing.

24 My question is, can you characterize the

25 type of — the degree of latitude that he would give

26 children who were guests on the ranch in terms of

27 when he would step in, when discipline, when

28 authority would be provided for these children. 2532

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Compound and

2 vague.

3 THE COURT: It’s compound. Sustained.

4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll strike “authority”

5 from the question. So, same question. When would

6 he step in and discipline these children, in terms

7 of scope. How far would he let them go.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. Compound —

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 THE WITNESS: Sometimes they would get

11 pretty rowdy. And he would — more frequently than

12 not, they would be much more rowdy, you know, and he

13 did let them have, you know, a free hand, so to say,

14 that they could get pretty rambunctious sometimes.

Auchincloss then questioned Fournier on arguably the most controversial aspect of Neverland; where did the children sleep at night? Fournier testified that they generally would stay in Jackson’s room:

15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would children have

16 extended stay — would some of these overnight

17 children have extended stays at Neverland.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And what do you mean by — or what do you

20 consider to be an extended stay.

21 A. During the school year, or time when school

22 was on, a couple of weeks.

23 Q. What are the sleeping arrangements for the

24 children. And I’ll be specific. Let’s talk about

25 in the years — let’s go back to the year — the

26 time frame of 2002, 2003.

27 A. The guests that were there at that time.

28 Q. Yes. The children guests. 2533

1 A. They had — the Arvizo children, they had

2 their own units, but —

3 Q. I’m speaking generally now. And I will ask

4 you about the Arvizos in just a moment. But

5 generally with the children, what are the sleeping

6 arrangements for the children who spend the night at

7 Neverland.

8 A. Well, usually they had get assigned

9 someplace to asleep, but a lot of times they would

10 stay with Mr. Jackson.

11 Q. Okay. Now, as far as the assigning of

12 someplace to sleep, tell me about that. How does

13 that work.

14 A. Well, typically when the guests came, they

15 would get their own room. And the children would —

16 you know, it depends on if their parents were there

17 or not, and they would get their room.

18 Q. So they’d get a room assigned to them.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Would the children who were assigned to a

21 given room always end up sleeping in that room.

22 A. No.

23 Q. What do you base that upon.

24 A. Well, the beds weren’t slept in when we went

25 to go clean the room, so nobody had been there to

26 stay the night, or appeared to be that way.

27 Q. All right. As far as these extended guests

28 who were children at the ranch, Mr. Jackson’s 2534

1 guests, did you ever notice a behavioral change in

2 these children during the time they were at the

3 ranch.

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;

5 foundation; leading.

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is a foundational

7 question.

8 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.

9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: When you were at the

10 ranch, did you spend time serving the children who

11 were guests there.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you spend time interacting with these

14 children.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you have an opportunity to — to observe

17 their behavior.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did you talk to the children.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did you see them playing with Mr. Jackson.

22 A. Yes.

Next, Fournier testified that the behavior of children changed while they were at Neverland. She described Neverland as “Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island” because children became wild and rambunctious outside the presence of their parents. This was part of the prosecutions’ attempt to give the jury the impression that Gavin and Star’s behavior changed as a result of the abuse that they suffered and witnessed, respectively, but Fournier described their change as going from polite to trashing their guest suite. However, there were other employees who also testified that they saw Gavin and Star engaging in rampant misbehavior even BEFORE the alleged acts of abuse started, and that was indicative of their destructive and disobedient nature:

23 Q. All right. And based upon everything you

24 observed during those — under those circumstances,

25 where you were interacting and watching these

26 children, were you able to determine whether or not

27 their behavior changed during that time that they

28 were at the ranch. 2535

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;

2 foundation; opinion.

3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s a proper —

4 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

5 You may answer.

6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You may answer the

7 question.

8 A. Yes, and some — their behavior did change.

9 It seems as if the more free rein they got to do

10 what — you know, to play, they became very, very

11 wild and in some ways destructive.

12 Q. Was this uncommon.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Did you see this behavior change — you

15 mentioned Gavin and Star Arvizo.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you know Gavin and Star Arvizo.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. How do you know them.

20 A. When I was working at Neverland.

21 Q. Okay. Were they guests of Mr. Jackson.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you observe that behavior change in

24 Gavin and Star while they were at Neverland.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Tell me about it.

27 A. Gavin was always really polite with me, and

28 it just — I was surprised when I went to go clean 2536

1 his room sometimes that he — he shared with his

2 brother Star, that it was just — I mean, it was a

3 mess. It was a mess. And just — for whatever

4 reason, it was a mess.

5 Q. Okay. And was — was this something that

6 changed during the time that they were at Neverland.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In other words, their room, the room that

9 you had to clean up.

10 A. Yes, because in the beginning it wasn’t like

11 that.

12 Q. Did some of these children return as guests

13 on more than one occasion.

14 A. Yes.

Next, in an attempt to prejudice the jury into thinking that Jackson was a serial child predator, Auchincloss asked Fournier about the “special relationships” that Jackson allegedly had with Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, Frank Cascio, and others. Mesereau objected based on the court’s 1108 Prior Bad Acts ruling (which was still pending at this time). Judge Melville sustained Mesereau’s objection, so Auchincloss instead asked Fournier to describe any “similar characteristics” that these young boys had, in order to paint Jackson as someone who had a certain “type”. This was such an egregious violation of the court’s order to not mention any of the prior victims that the defense used this incident as grounds for a mistrial! (We’ll get into that later on in the trial.):

15 Q. During your employment — going back to the

16 big time frame, during your employment at Neverland,

17 did you ever observe Mr. Jackson to form a

18 special — any especially close relationships with

19 these children.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can you characterize whether or not he

22 focused his attention on these children that he

23 formed these relationships with to the exclusion of

24 other children present.

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; leading;

26 foundation.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 You may answer. Do you want the question 2537

1 read back.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, please.

3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can simplify the

4 question, I think, Your Honor. I’ll rephrase it.

5 Q. Did he pick some kids over other kids to

6 spend his time with and focus his attentions on.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you remember any of their names.

9 A. Um —

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time.

11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Over your ten-year

12 period.

13 A. Yes, I —

14 MR. MESEREAU: Relevance; foundation.

15 THE COURT: Overruled.

16 You may answer.

17 THE WITNESS: He had — some of his buddies

18 were like Brett Barnes. Little Michael.

19 MR. MESEREAU: I’m going to object based on

20 the Court’s ruling on 1108.

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can go to sidebar on

22 this, Your Honor. We’re not going any further than

23 this.

24 THE COURT: I’ll hold you to that.

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

26 Q. Okay. Go ahead.

27 A. Little Michael. His name was Omar. Frank

28 Cascio. Aldo Cascio. I think Dominick. I get the 2538

1 two confused.

2 Q. Is Dominick a Cascio as well.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is that one of Frank’s brothers.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is Aldo one of Frank’s brothers.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Any other names.

9 A. Like Gavin was another person that he really

10 took in. Macaulay Culkin. I can’t really think of

11 anybody else right now.

12 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of

13 Jimmy Safechuck.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Was he one of them.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. How about Jordie Chandler.

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I’m going to

20 object. The Court’s ruling on 1108.

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

22 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike.

23 THE COURT: Stricken.

24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: How about a child named

25 Elijah.

26 A. Yes.

27 MR. MESEREAU: I’d like to make a motion,

28 Your Honor. 2539

1 THE COURT: We’ll take it up later.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

3 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And were there any boys

4 from Los Olivos, local boys, who he formed a special

5 bond with.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right.

8 A. Not quite as much as the other children,

9 though. I mean, it just seemed like they weren’t as

10 close.

11 Q. All right. Did these individuals that

12 you’ve named share anything in common.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;

14 foundation.

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did — these

17 individuals that you named, were they of a similar

18 age.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. 1108; vague; and

20 leading.

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can go through them and

22 ask what the ages of each one were, if you’d like,

23 approximately.

24 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. We’ll do this

26 serially.

27 Q. Can you tell me — during the time that Mr.

28 Jackson had this special relationship with Mr. Jimmy 2540

1 Safechuck, can you tell me about what Jimmy

2 Safechuck’s age was.

3 MR. MESEREAU: Leading; compound; violates

4 the Court’s ruling on 1108. I’d like to make a

5 motion.

6 THE COURT: Overruled.

7 MR. MESEREAU: And misstates the evidence.

8 THE COURT: It’s overruled, too. The first

9 question has to be whether or not she knows the age.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.

11 THE COURT: If that’s — that’s the first

12 question I want you to ask.

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

14 THE COURT: And then if she can answer that

15 “yes,” you can ask the next question.

16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.

17 Q. Jimmy Safechuck. Do you know or do you

18 believe you could characterize — first of all, let

19 me — do you know what his age was during the period

20 of time that he was a close friend of Mr. Jackson.

21 A. No.

22 Q. Could you characterize — approximate his

23 age based upon his appearance.

24 A. Ten to 13, 14 years old.

25 Q. Okay. What about — same question for Mr.

26 Robison. Did you know his age.

27 A. No.

28 Q. Could you characterize it based upon your 2541

1 observations.

2 A. About the same age.

3 Q. Omar Bhatti, or Omar, the guy — you said

4 Omar. What about him, did you know his age.

5 A. I think he was 14 when I left, but I’m not

6 sure. 14 or 15.

7 Q. Okay. And how long had he known Mr. Jackson

8 or were you aware of their relationship prior to the

9 time that you left.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can — I can follow that

12 up. I’ll strike that last question, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: All right.

14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: When was the first time

15 that you met Mr. Bhatti. I’m sorry, I’m using —

16 Mr. Bhatti, Omar, the 14-year-old you knew as

17 “Omar.”

18 A. I think 1998.

19 Q. Okay. And if — and he was about 14 in

20 ‘93 (sic).

21 A. Uh-huh.

22 Q. Was that what you’re saying.

23 A. Yes, something — 14 or 15.

24 Q. All right. Frank Cascio. I think you said

25 that — how old — did you know how old Frank Cascio

26 was when you left in ‘93 (sic).

27 A. I think he was 22 or 23.

28 Q. Okay. And you previously testified you 2542

1 first met him in 1991, I think; is that correct.

2 A. Yeah, I think it was ‘91.

3 Q. Aldo Cascio, can you characterize — do you

4 know how old he was when you left the ranch in

5 ‘93 (sic).

6 A. In 2003.

7 Q. I’m sorry, ‘93. I’m saying “’93.” 2003.

8 That’s what I mean.

9 A. I think he was 12.

10 Q. All right. What do you base that upon.

11 A. You kind of get to know the kids a little

12 bit, and I think he was about that age. Somewhere

13 right around there.

14 Q. Okay. McCaulay Culkin. Do you know how old

15 he was during the period of time that he was a close

16 friend of Mr. Jackson or formed —

17 A. No, I really don’t.

18 Q. Okay. Can you characterize it, based upon

19 your observations.

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Asked and

21 answered. No foundation.

22 THE COURT: Overruled.

23 THE WITNESS: I don’t know. Ten, 12, 13

24 years old.

25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Brett Barnes. Do you

26 know how old he was during the time that he was a

27 close friend —

28 A. No. 2543

1 Q. — of Mr. Jackson.

2 And same question, follow-up question. Can

3 you characterize his approximate age.

4 A. About the same age.

5 Q. 11 to 13.

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. Elijah, do you know how old he was when he

8 had a special or a close friendship with Mr.

9 Jackson.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I’m going to

11 object to the characterization. Misstates the

12 evidence.

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did — based upon your

15 observations, did the individual you named as Elijah

16 have a relationship with Mr. Jackson.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And how would you characterize it.

19 A. Close friendship.

20 Q. Okay. And during the time that he — this

21 individual named Elijah was a close friend, shared a

22 close friendship with Mr. Jackson, do you know how

23 old he was.

24 A. Well, I think Elijah is also a relative.

25 Q. Okay. Is he someone who lives locally.

26 A. Yeah. Not too far from here.

27 Q. As far as you know.

28 A. Uh-huh. 2544

1 Q. And do you know how old he is today.

2 A. No.

3 Q. Do you know how old — so does Elijah

4 continue to visit the ranch.

5 A. When I left in September he did.

6 Q. And can you characterize, based upon your

7 observations, of his approximate age.

8 A. When he started coming there.

9 Q. No, when you left the ranch.

10 A. I think he was over 18.

11 Q. How about when he started there — when you

12 started there.

13 A. He was — he was pretty young, so I would

14 say around eight years old.

15 Q. He was about eight when you first saw him

16 come to the ranch.

17 A. Yeah.

18 Q. And you mentioned some local boys from Los

19 Olivos. We didn’t talk about how many of them there

20 were. Do you know — how many boys are you talking

21 about when you say “local boys from Los Olivos”.

22 A. Four or five.

23 Q. Were they of different ages or similar ages.

24 A. I think they were all in the eighth or ninth

25 grade.

26 Q. Okay.

27 A. Maybe even the seventh grade. I’m not too

28 sure. 2545

After grilling Fournier about Jackson’s relationships with his young friends, Auchincloss next questioned her about Jackson’s consumption of alcohol. In an absolutely bombshell revelation, Fournier testified that she had seen children intoxicated “three to four times”, but when asked if she had ever seen them intoxicated in Jackson’s presence, she couldn’t ascertain it. She gave an example of a time when Jackson and four or five children were at the dinner table in September 2003, with no other adults around, and “at least three” of the children appeared to be intoxicated. Prior to being at the table, they were at the ranch house, but when Auchincloss asked Fournier if Jackson was with them at the ranch house, she said she thought so, but Mesereau objected and Judge Melville sustained it and admonished the jury to disregard her answer. Auchincloss was trying to establish to the jury that Jackson gave the children alcohol while they were all at the ranch house, and then brought them to the main house to eat dinner. Auchincloss direct examination ended after this series of quests on Jackson’s alcohol consumption.

Here is some information for everyone out there that doesn’t know this. Unless you have a written contract with a certain entity employment here in the US is “at will’. That means that in most entry level jobs like housekeeping and waiting your boss has the right to fire you without notice for no reason at all. Just like you have the right to quit for no reason at all. Someone should have let Zonen and Auchincloss know that before they made the implication that Michael would up and fire people for no reason. Any boss can at any time so why was he supposed to be different? Just how blindly prejudiced were these people?

It really is ridiculous how they went on about his personal business..Can you imagine your housekeeper in court discussing how much you drink at your own house.Who you have over as guests? It is so insulting , all because of the deadbeat Arvizo family.
He should be able to hire and fire who he wants to if he doesnt feel comfortable with any particular person..He should have made them sign confidentiality agreements too..
This was so intrusive and it all stems from jealousy
.